PLAYER57832 wrote:Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion.

Sorry, you're wrong; some folks DO "just choose" to have an abortion, for reasons having nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or danger-from-birth for the mother. Calling it "pro choice" is accurate.

You would have to add quite a few other categories before you get to it being a real "choice". They represent about 3% of abortions.

Even so, almost all of those women would choose to just not get pregnant over an abortion.

If your argument essentially boils down to this: people who are pro-life in the context of abortions that may save the mother's life are wrong, I agree with that.

If your argument is that most women choose to have abortions to save their own lives and not for any other reason, which seems to be what you've typed numerous times, then you're patently wrong. Not mistaken; not misinterpreted; you are WRONG.

I have never said that or anything close to that. I HAVE said that medically, an elective operation is one that is not 100% necessary to sustain life, limb, etc. You have argued that point over and over, but have never bothered to verify , you just post other links that further distort the issue.

I have further said that this intentional misunderstanding of the term has been conveniently paraded to support the anti abortion cause. Ironically, they go to greater lengths to ignore what the term abortion means medically.

I don’t have time to get into the rest AGAIN, right now.

And your continual attempt to present me as someone who somehow likes abortion, as opposed to just someone who thinks it needs to be legal because it is better than the alternatives is pretty dispicable.

And, it seems typical.

Just like your "logic" that being against the Republican party somehow means I am a card-carrying Democrat.

PLAYER57832 wrote:NEWSFLASH... ANYTHING is harmful when "enough is ingested".

NEWSFLASH ... flouride doesn't help teeth when ingested. Getting flouride into toothpaste and mouth washes was a good first step. Getting it into our drinking water was a bad idea based on circumstantial evidence at best, although to be honest this was the 1940's not the 1950. History of Water Fluoridation

New research shows fluoride’s beneficial effects are merely topical so there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride. Unfortunately, dental fluorosis is caused by drinking fluoride. So dentists have actually created the problem they sought to remedy in the American population.

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so “safe and effective” that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

or better yet, (and this one goes to the heart of all 1950's worshipers.

In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.

2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).

3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).

4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.

5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).

6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).

7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children’s blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.

8 ) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

If your argument essentially boils down to this: people who are pro-life in the context of abortions that may save the mother's life are wrong, I agree with that.

If your argument is that most women choose to have abortions to save their own lives and not for any other reason, which seems to be what you've typed numerous times, then you're patently wrong. Not mistaken; not misinterpreted; you are WRONG.

I have never said that or anything close to that. I HAVE said that medically, an elective operation is one that is not 100% necessary to sustain life, limb, etc. You have argued that point over and over, but have never bothered to verify , you just post other links that further distort the issue.

I have further said that this intentional misunderstanding of the term has been conveniently paraded to support the anti abortion cause. Ironically, they go to greater lengths to ignore what the term abortion means medically.

I don’t have time to get into the rest AGAIN, right now.

And your continual attempt to present me as someone who somehow likes abortion, as opposed to just someone who thinks it needs to be legal because it is better than the alternatives is pretty dispicable.

And, it seems typical.

Just like your "logic" that being against the Republican party somehow means I am a card-carrying Democrat.

I'm not painting anything. You're painting it yourself. I'm distoring nothing. As I said, there is no reason for me to distort anything. I don't get anything out of this discussion. In fact, it's extremely frustrating having this same stupid discussion with you.

If you would like to justify abortion by saying "it needs to be legal because it is better than the alternatives" and include in the definition of "alternative" something other than "save the life of the mother," then we have no problem. The only times you ever mention abortion is to defend it by saying it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. THAT IS NOT THE REASON WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS!!! At least use the real reasons. Your problem is that you don't use facts or evidence. You make these bold statements with no basis in anything resembling real life or fact. And then you whine when people call you out on it.

Yeah, but suppose I like having brittle bones. WHAT THEN, DR. CONNETT?!

you might try studying physics. See, the harder something is, the more brittle it becomes.just one of the many points ignored, and discussed pretty fully when this was brought up before.... jay's thread, I think it was?

Anyway, I am not arguing that it should not be debated or the issue re-examined. I am saying that it was a policy made based on science... and despite the claims to the contrary, has worked.

The "problem" is that our overall health, including dental health, is now so high that these other issue begin to matter, instead of being negligible impacts.

Its sort of like an old stats class example. If you are in a room (all needs met, no one can leave0 where random shotguns rain down and kill a random person every day, are you really going to worry that a chemical in the air might kill one in one hundred?Now, people actually get to keep their teeth1 Flouridated water IS a big reason, but whether that need can now be met more effectively through other means, such as brushing more frequently, etc. Remember when kindergarteners learned to "brush once a day" ? Now kids are taught to brush "after each meal", or an absolute minimum of twice.

You might be more honest with playing around with words in the English language. Sure diamonds are hard. Sure diamonds are brittle. But you can typically drop a diamond without having it shatter into dust. There is a difference between a hard substance that has a fault line allowing specific forces to break it and something that can be broken from any force from almost any direction. The fact that people often confuse fragile with brittle is not something you should casually exploit.

I think their greatest weakness is intolerance and closed mindedness. That is not for all Democrats of course, and I am still eagerly anticipating the Tea Party Democrat revolution that is to come, but a good example of what I am talking about is on the issue of gay marriage. No matter what their opinion is on it, nobody wants to talk about it on either side (in my personal circles IRL). Everyone is in the closet. Since the issue is virtually all based on feelings, we never even get far enough to where the mind has even been introduced, much less opened, and the other person is automatically SIXHRB'd. And when things turn away from ideas and discussion and towards feelings and emotions, it can get pretty insane watching a person tolerate absolutely nothing but their own opinion in the name of tolerance. Just look at where almost all of the name calling comes from.

Phatscotty wrote:I think their greatest weakness is intolerance and closed mindedness. That is not for all Democrats of course, and I am still eagerly anticipating the Tea Party Democrat revolution that is to come, but a good example of what I am talking about is on the issue of gay marriage. No matter what their opinion is on it, nobody wants to talk about it on either side (in my personal circles IRL). Everyone is in the closet. Since the issue is virtually all based on feelings, we never even get far enough to where the mind has even been introduced, much less opened, and the other person is automatically SIXHRB'd. And when things turn away from ideas and discussion and towards feelings and emotions, it can get pretty insane watching a person tolerate absolutely nothing but their own opinion in the name of tolerance. Just look at where almost all of the name calling comes from.

Just look at where almost all of the name called is deserved.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Stupid comment, ... but if that comment were made, as it often is by folks in all parties, by a WASP or (or even WASRC.. anglo saxon Roman Catholic ), it would not have made a blip.

"Send them back where they came from" is about getting people out of office or off the election circuit in today's political vernacular.

Ironically, the slip was more about NOT being racist than being racist. I can remember being down south, with a bunch of guys in a blue-collar job, joking around. One did or said something incredibly stupid -- not "bad", just roll your eyes "funny/stupid". I sidled up to him and said "Boy, you....". I looked around and saw stoney silence. The guy was black. It had not even occurred to me that there was any kind of racial negative implication. I explained and was forgiven, made me realize I had to just think a bit more. More ironically, those folks regularly referred to women around as "girl"-- and not necessarily even thinking of it as a negative.

Look dumbass, did you even look at the post I made IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT ONE? As in probably less than one minute after that one?

I mean, my God...you didn't even comment on it, EVEN THOUGH I WAS POINTING OUT that a Democrat was engaging in dumbassery.

Then did you even comment on my next post in the thread, which was a response to PLAYER? It's like you're blinded by some light you've created in your own mind.

I would also point out that the Democrats are FAR FROM "my side". I find them as reprehensible as the Republicans as a group...though I admit that I find some individual Republicans to be the worst of the bunch. I know you can't help but see the world as "us and them" though, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Stop being a partisan hack.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Stupid comment, ... but if that comment were made, as it often is by folks in all parties, by a WASP or (or even WASRC.. anglo saxon Roman Catholic ), it would not have made a blip.

"Send them back where they came from" is about getting people out of office or off the election circuit in today's political vernacular.

Ironically, the slip was more about NOT being racist than being racist.

You'll find a way to excuse pretty much anything a Democrat does, won't you?

Democratic has nothing to do with it.

As far as your defending them, it certainly seems to.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Being in the south, does.

No, being in the south doesn't have anything to do with your defending them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:by the way, for all you want to paint me as "just a Democrat", I have voted for far more Republicans than Democrats, even in the last election. I just did not vote for McCain or Romney.

Yeah, and Phatscotty votes for more Democrats and he constantly complains about the Republicans too. Sure. Whatever.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.